Hillary Clinton equates ISIS and Hamas

Hillary Clinton speaking at Council on Foreign Relations on Nov. 19, 2015



The argument that the U.S. and the west are finally undertaking the war Israel has been fighting for years is of course a major theme of pro-Israel commentary post Paris. Militant Israeli policies re Palestinian resistance are being offered as a role model to the west; and the Palestinian political party Hamas is being put on the same plane as ISIS– a longstanding propaganda claim of the Israeli prime minister, or as long as ISIS has been in the news.

In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. We cannot view Iran and ISIS as separate challenges. Regional politics are too interwoven. Raising the confidence of our Arab partners and raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East

The result: they defend vaguer, slower, thinner versions of policies urged by Republicans. Until they recognize that foreign policy sets the limits of domestic policy, they will never compete with the exigent reasons a party for war can manufacture with the greatest of ease. A halfway intelligent US policy toward the Middle East and Israel won’t be possible until this larger political imbalance is corrected.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not late. He has been working the Paris moment to explain that the west and Israel are in the same war, against beasts of radical Islam prowling the streets and waterways, as he told a French official:

And we stand shoulder to shoulder, committed to defend our common civilization.

It’s difficult for civilized men and women to recognize that our cities, our airways, sometimes our waterways are prowled by beasts that devour the innocent in their way. And the forces of civilization, when they realize the severity of this problem, have no option but to unite very clearly and defeat these beasts.

It is certainly true that ISIS has been a thorn in the side of the civilized world since its inception, and has displayed an almost incomprehensible cruelty with its kidnappings and beheadings…. It richly deserves to be bombed into oblivion, and beyond,

But is Hamas less cruel? Or Hezbollah? Or, for that matter, their godparent, the PLO?…

At the end of the piece, he says that Israelis are “us,” because his Israelis are Jews of course:

Even as we grieve with Paris and her citizens, it’s important to remember that Israelis have been stabbed on streets, shot in cars, and assaulted on mass transit in Jerusalem and around Israel for weeks now, and none of the West’s major powers have done more than utter tepid condemnations. Yes, grieve for France. But the perspective of a wider lens is called for: one that includes us.

Finally, what about this in Hillary Clinton’s speech. Doesn’t it apply to Israel as much as to Syria?

we have indicated a willingness to work with [Russia] toward an outcome that preserves Syria as a unitary nonsectarian state with protections for the rights of all Syrians, and to keep key state institutions intact.

And there was this comment on the Arab Spring. Many of these explosive conditions exist in Israeli-controlled Palestine as well

I spoke about the foundations of the region sinking into the sand just as the Arab Spring was breaking. And I did so not knowing about the Arab Spring coming to full bloom, but because it was so clear that what was being done by dictatorships, by the denial of opportunity, by the repression, by the sectarian divide just could not stand. It was going to explode at some point or another.

About Philip Weiss

Posted In:

131 Responses

News flash Hillary… Iran. Hezbollah and Hamas are leading the fight against Isis. How can someone so ignorant aspire to be the leader of the freaked? How could a room of ostensibly foreign policy wonks not challenge her? Has the government so obfuscated the situation as to render critical thinking impossible?

Re: Hillary Clinton “as sec’y of state, put into place a series of actions to overthrow the secular gov’ts in the middle east and to replace them with radical Islamic regimes. Why she was doing this; I know she has great connections, financial and otherwise, with Saudi Arabia, with Qatar, with Kuwait, with some of the TYRANTS OF THE ARAB WORLD (my emphasis, but isn’t this just the worst possible resume’ of a person seeking to be the next so-called leader of the so-called FREE WORLD?) They tried to overthrow Egypt and the Egyptian people rose up, 30 million people, in the biggest demonstration in all human history took to the streets in Egypt and they took back their country from the Muslim Brotherhood. The US did success in destroying Libya. Libya no longer has a government. It’s simply a land of chaos and disorder, but we attacked Libya with the express purpose of capturing their weapons, sending them into Turkey and then Turkey in turn uses those weapons to arm jihadists to attack into Syria, which was a neutral non-belligerent country that never takes an offensive action against any other nation. And so yes, I think clearly the coalition against Syria is in utter, dramatic violation of the law of land warfare”. Ya! What could possibly go wrong? And I can’t help but think that this dangerous game constantly being played by the US and this part in particular by H. Clinton as the sec’y of state, was done at the behest of Israel, the tiny little democracy in the M.E. with an appetite for chaos and land confiscation that can’t be satiated. What a great interview this is!

Question (5:34) – “Here we are obviously in a region with so-called allies like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, whose interests don’t seem to be that of the American population. You’d think we’d be more allied with the Russian perspective, as the Russians are now involving themselves against ISIS and yet here we are. We could potentially end up in a confrontation against the Russians in Syria. How could you see that unfolding?”

Senator Black: “You know the hypocrisy of the position taken by NATO and to some extent the United States are just stunning, because we claim that ISIS is the greatest threat to mankind and that it’s gotta be stopped and yet, we attack their biggest enemy, which is Syria and now the Russians rush to the rescue and provide inspiration to the world and here we are now saying wait a minute, we’re not so sure because and the reason I’ll tell you is this. We know when the Russians go in and they’re going into Latakia province, where they’re in position to seal off another piece of the Syrian border where supplies are coming across to Al-Qaeda, we know that the Russians mean business. They’re not gonna be there flying jet aircraft and then bringing them back with their bomb loads as we’ve been doing. There’s a tremendous amount of fakedness (?) in our war against ISIS. We know when the Russians go out, when their planes go in they’re gonna bomb. And I tell you what. In any war that you fight, you go after the enemy’s capital. In the second world war we went after Tokyo, we went after Berlin. This is typically the way you do it. The United States for years has known that the capital of ISIS is in Raqqa, Syria. Raqqa, Syria is totally functional. Every once in a while there’s a bomb strike here and there, but it’s all for show. We have allowed Raqqa to function. I don’t believe the Russians will do that and I tell you what, if I were advising Pres. Putin, I would tell him…”

She is not ignorant, she’s anything but ignorant. She knows these are seperate issues but she’s also running for president and the way the donor network is setup in the U.S. you have to conflate whichever enemy Israel has as of now with each other.

On the recent rebellions on Syrian refugees, I do think it’s noteworthy that we’ve seen several top democratic Jewish powerbrokers essentially break lines with liberals here. Schumer is the most notable one, who has indicated he might break with Obama but only after being briefed first.

In the house just now, Steve Israel was among the rebels. This is no mere backbencher, he’s one of the most important democrats in the house of representatives.

I was pleased to see Nadler take a strong principled line(which isn’t surprising given what he voted for on the Iran deal). Still, quite telling that this group of people, who surely must know the refugee history of the Jews, would slam the door in such a way. How removed they are from their own history – and the liberal pulse of the young of this nation.

It is disgraceful that the US continues to be blinded by it’s neo conservative ideology . The US has always supported right wing regimes that have created chaos and destruction. Hillary as president is deeply disturbing. We must continue with grass root resistance and speak out against the US continued support of Israel’s ungodly occupation.

I agree completely. Bottom up remodelling of American politics and society is needed for a fairer world. Fortunately, with the rising social and economical hardship among the middle class, it is forcing the public to be more assertive and challenge the status quo. Americans need to change and set their course of the country themselves, not hope for Bernie or Hillary or whoever to magically fix everything for them.

I’d change ignorant to insane though. She can’t be THAT ignorant unless it’s willful, and to be willfully ignorant on something that, if implemented, is certain to cause the death of a[nother] million human beings is psychopathic.

Hillary wants to be the next president at any cost and will do anything to achieve that, including spending a weekend with Bibi, if asked.
A person with such defficiencies in character would be very dangerous for the country, she would take orders from Israel and pave their way to Eretz Israel. Wars are good for the US economy, if not for the nation, and a great percentage of the population would like what she does. Since Vietnam we had enough wars where americans died and billions were blown away, yet no major outcry against them during the past 40 years or so. Did we become the new Roman Empire, where a war was a way of life until they were swept away by the hordes from the north. Do we head toward the same future?

While I’m not aware of anyone who posts here that is capable of making an informed medical diagnosis, I don’t see any reason to rule psychopathy out of the question. If the clash of cultures that these attempt to promulgate ever occurs then Israeli’s, 75% of whom are Jewish, will be directly in the firing line. While they do have nuclear weapons it will nevertheless be a suicidal effort.

As someone else pointed out it’s something like 0.006 percent of Muslims that are the issue. There is no doubt in my mind that similar percentages of Jewish, Christian, Buddhist fundamentalists are similarly an issue.

Blownaway – – Sadly, Hillary Clinton is almost certainly well aware that Hezbollah is fighting Isis in Syria. And indeed it is depressing that “a room full of policy wonks” is unwilling to challenge her position. I think we both know why this phenomenon obtains.

Clinton, “In September I laid out a comprehensive plan to counter Iranian influence across the region and its support for terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas”. Of course the way she wants to counter them is to have proxy forces like the Free Syrian Army and AlQaeda fighting those influences on America’s behalf. Unfortunately for Hillary, the Russians and Iranians got there first, legally [invited by the Syrian government] and are in the process of smashing the ‘good ‘ and ‘bad’ US terrorist proxy forces. She like McCain probably wants to arm the “moderate” terrorists with stinger missiles see http://sputniknews.com/us/20151020/1028835944/us-stingers-missiles-syrian-rebels-mccain.html Here again the FSA [if they exist and are probably rarer than unicorns] sell US weapons and generally cooperate with not so moderate groups, [this is a proven fact]. The bottom line is the so called ‘arc of extremism’ Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq and now Russia are winning hands down, and the US does not know what to do. What Hillary and other warmongers omit to mention are that those stinger missiles and other weapons like the TOW anti tank missiles supplied to so called moderates will inevitably fall into more extremists hands, in that case US and Israeli civilian aircraft will have to steer clear of the middle east.

The Syrian situation has an aspect which must be giving Israeli military planner a great deal of concern.

At the moment it looks as though, with Russian support, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah are going to succeed in taking Syria back. If they do, it will mean that Israel has two successful, battle-hardened forces, experienced in working together, on its Northern borders. The Syrian Air Force is working with, and undoubtedly learning from, the Russian Air Force.

Now suppose that, after the Syrian war is over, the Syrians re-equip with the latest Russian weaponry (T90s or even T14s, s-300, s-400, SU 35s, Yakhont missiles, and so forth) and Hezbollah gets advanced Iranian weapons.*

The Israelis couldn’t beat Hezbollah last time. The prospect of facing upgraded Syrian forces and Hezbollah should concentrate their minds wonderfully.

*I have seen a report that Syria has handed over 75 tanks to Hezbollah. These are said to be T-55s and T-72s. T-72s are obsolete, and T-55s are antiques. (James Bond uses them for car chases. They aren’t delicate antiques.) Both types are very vulnerable to modern AT weapons and modern tanks. Can still do a few nasty things with them, though.

RoHa: Now suppose that, after the Syrian war is over, the Syrians re-equip with the latest Russian weaponry (T90s or even T14s, s-300, s-400, SU 35s, Yakhont missiles, and so forth) and Hezbollah gets advanced Iranian weapons.*

The Israelis couldn’t beat Hezbollah last time. The prospect of facing upgraded Syrian forces and Hezbollah should concentrate their minds wonderfully.
————-

Yes, they will concentrate their minds on increasing their military power and proficiency, getting more advanced weapons from the U.S., updating their weapons of mass destruction, devising new strategies of collective punishment, new propaganda campaigns to demonize enemies, new plans for preemptive war, and so on. A new arms race? Great. How will any of this more highly concentrated militarism help the Palestinians?

ROHA- “At the moment it looks as though, with Russian support, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah are going to succeed in taking Syria back.”

Fantasies may be fun, but reality eventually prevails. Things will get worse before they get better, and I doubt that they will get better. Syria has effectively been destroyed, its economy in tatters. The empire has nearly unlimited funding to hire replacement mercenary jihadists and to arm and supply them. Russia’s involvement is temporary, merely designed to encourage negotiations. Russia lacks the means for significant force projection in the Middle East. Russia cannot get involved in a direct conflict with NATO, nor get bogged down in a war of attrition. The scenario you wish for would cause the collapse of the current imperial order and is not even being contemplated. Hillary and the Republicans are making it quite clear that the current long war for imperial hegemony will not be slowed down, rather, they all call for escalation including increased special operations forces. Their views reflect the consensus of the dominant elites as represented by The Council on Foreign Relations. In 2016, a huge pile of you-know-what is going to hit an enormous fan.

The IDF did not face a modern, well trained military force until they faced the Hezbollah and even they are not what I would call a modern army. The boys and girls of the IDF can shoot unarmed civilians, bomb towns full of such civilians, or just molest the palestinians. Outside a few well trained units they have, the rest will never face up to an equally armed opponents, as the latest Lebanon war proved.
A man who has nothing to lose can be very dangerous and the palestinians and arabs around Israel are in that situation. They have no place to go. On the other hand the israelis have a lot to lose and should a real major war break out, not like the shooting of people in Gaza, then we will see a long line at the airport trying to flee to the USA or Europe.

Yes, the story of that war presented to us in the west is a glorified propaganda, or why do you think the israelis tried to sink our intelligence ship SS. Liberty? Why it collected information that the world should never know.

First of all, that was not a defensive war, the arabs had absolutly no intentions or the ability to attack Israel, as was confirmed years later by different israeli generals and politicians. That war started with a huge lie, (as all israeli wars do), and was to enlarge the territory of Israel and conquer the West Bank. You should visit the Haganah Museum in Jerusalem and learn the real story of the 1948 and other wars.
Israel attacked Egypt and other arab nations without a declaration of war, their air force and armor was destroyed by air attacks, leaving them very little to defend themselves against the much superior weapons, tanks and planes of the IDF. Israel flew the new F-16 fighters before our pilots could ever do, just to underline my above statement, they always had the best we could present to them. The arabs had outdated soviet and other weaponry, the soldiers could hardly read or write, and their officers were simply not up to a modern warfare. They were facing a military with educations in the best US and european universities, their officers trained accordingly. During 1962 I trained with israeli and NATO officers in Ft. Monmouth, NJ, however not with a single arab one.

In my comment I said “the rest will never face up to an EQUALLY armed opponent”, and the first show was in Lebanon, where they lost against the Hezbollah, a ragtag army. With airpower you can never win a war, as we saw in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and presently Syria, you need booths, and a lot of them, on the ground. In your opinion, the boys and girls, who come from all over the globe to serve in the IDF and have fun subjugating the palestinians, would or could face up to a determined arab army with the best russian weapons? The Hezbollah has up to 20-30,000 missiles and that could wipe out half of Israel. Should the zionists not start making friends with their neighbours and give back stolen lands?

Yes, I know. I’m not sure of the relevance of that in regard to Israel’s military capabilities to wage conventional warfare. Nor was the Arab defeat the consequence of poor quality Soviet equipment. They were foolishly unprepared under the circumstances. Furthermore, the US was not Israel’s primary weapons supplier until after the 1967 war. At the time, the Israeli air force was flying primarily French built Mirage jets, the acquisition of F-16s years in the future. It is never wise to underestimate your opponent just because you don’t like them. Hezbollah’s success is primarily due to the fact that they wisely adopted tactics suited to the asymmetrical situation.

And her condemnation of the “sectarian divide” clearly does not apply to Israel’s foundation of sectarian supremacy, and the brutality that has flowed from that for decades, provoking today’s sectarian chaos.

Hillary Clinton can’t see the forest from the donor money. What she suggests for Syria “we have indicated a willingness to work with [Russia] toward an outcome that preserves Syria as a unitary nonsectarian state with protections for the rights of all Syrians, and to keep key state institutions intact” as Phil notes, is an Rx for Israel, What a hypocrite. I fear that no matter who sits in the white house next, that president will declare yet another war, and in the process give birth to another “isis” and in the meantime the Israelis will continue their pogrom of annihilation of the Palestinian people, all because the money paid to these phony politicians, is to lucrative to turn away or the dirt the Haim Saban’s, the Koch brothers or that other old ass casino runner would destroy them. I am so sorry for the American people and at the same time so ashamed that’s my place of my birth.

Yes….this coming Presidential Election the People of America have a prime opportunity to eradicate Israel’s Zionist influence on the American Government by with holding their votes from Pro Zionist Politicians seeking Presidential office. Let Saban,Adelson and the Koch’s waste their money for nought.

Thanks for the link – which has me fuming with a mix of anger but also satisfaction at seeing my own opinions so perfectly mirrored in a brilliant journalistic piece. My political opinions, sadly, are totally opposite to those of a close family member and are therefore causing a profound rift between us.
While I’ve always been proud of being able to think for myself, it still feels good to realize that my views are shared by intelligent, well informed people, and confirms my right to refuse being made to feel guilty or stupid for expressing them.

(Sorry if I sound overly emotional, I guess it’s due to the events of the last few days/weeks getting to me . . . . as well as everyone else, I imagine).

@italian patriot sunshine is the great disinfectant perhaps sharing a scholarly article such as the link will help at least educate I’ve used it not so much with people with opposite view but a view only informed by the governments stenographers

@italianexpat: Your “lone wolf” experience of feeling alienated & isolated by the rest-of-the-herd is probably a sentiment commonly shared by the vast majority of the regular MW community of contributors; commenters; and consumers. It’s actually a badge of honour that you steadfastly cleave to your principles notwithstanding the tremendous social &/or familial pressures brought to bear upon you for living in a reality-based universe where you are governed by simple common sense and a healthy respect for global social justice. I’ve been trying to survive the same nasty social “banishment” by incurious and oblivious herd zombies who regrettably number among among my closest family members and friends. This is a once-in-a-generation stand that we consciously take & an ethical position worthy of risking long-term social ostracism. We shall overcome! As the proverbial tide is in fact inexorably turning. Indeed, the arc of the moral universe is long, but it is unmistakably on a trajectory bending toward justice. Hasbara central is presently in overdrive, cynically & opportunistically milking the recent Paris tragedy for all the blood-soaked advantage that it can; making MW readers’ & users’ task that much harder. But remain assured that we will ultimately prevail. You are entitled to occasionally feel emotional & beleaguered. This is all par for the (tough) course.

Thanks for the kind words of encouragement.
I know better than to engage in arguments on matters of politics or religion with people of opposing opinions, even as I respect their right to have them. But I expect the same when it comes to me, so I resent having to often bite my tongue, and especially to be muzzled in my own home in order to avoid disastrous consequences. Not a pretty situation.

you feel like aliens, you fight with your families, your a bit of an oddball and have strong political convictions. typical. but then you feel that you will ultimately prevail. so the minority fringe far left view will ultimately prevail over the majority.

btw-the linked article is so filled with gushing love for Putin and Assad its a wonder how you can feel your political views are so superior to the rest of the ‘earthlings’ who haven’t yet figured out that the war against assad is just an israeli ploy for dominion and putin is really the savior of the free world.

not intended as a personal indictment but a comment on the tenor of MW commentaries and the head nut, PW. I suppose it is a bit difficult to be so far out in either left or right field but as a general rule of how the world works: when either far right or far left “prevails” it has ALWAYS been a nightmare for the humans living on earth.

I’ve never claimed my views to be ‘superior’ to anybody else’s, nor do I consider myself to be part of a far-left minority fringe – whatever you mean by that.

I must say, however, that I’m constantly faced with an undeniable fact : most views espoused by pro-Israel demagogues seem to come straight out of the GOP playbook. That is to say, totally against my core principles.

” most views espoused by pro-Israel demagogues seem to come straight out of the GOP playbook. That is to say, totally against my core principles”

But my dear “Italian ex-pat” you are missing an important distinction! When the GOP does it, it’s politics. But when we do it, it’s religion, and culture, and history, sugar and spice and everything nice. And how can that possibly be against your principles?

And besides, the GOP is governed by self-interest. Not like selfless Zionism, which has been struggling for a 100 years to give away Palestine, in spite of the tremendous cost to us.

So Ms would be President Clinton. The question is are you speaking from 1) the bottom of your heart or 2) the bottom of your campaign purse. The answer is you have guessed it is 2).

Absolutely gruesome knee jerk grovelling to the Zionist paymasters yet again with no attempt whatsoever to engage whatever brain she has got before opening mouth – but no great surprise.

As for Nitay Nitay Bang Bang`s ” And we stand shoulder to shoulder, committed to defend our common civilization”. Please please slither back into whatever slime coated mental recess you retreat to on occasion. You and your ilk have nothing repeat nothing in common with the true western civilisation which I come from and live in , unlike the many hundreds of thousands of decent honest and law abiding Muslims and Jews with whom I am proud to share that civilisation .

She must get her talking point from Natenyahu, it is prepostrous to equate ISIS with Hamas, rather like Bush saying Saddam was a supporter of AlQaeda when in fact they were mortal enemies. What is important for Clinton is to get a sufficient number of uninformed Americans to believe this garbage. She may succeed.

“rather like Bush saying Saddam was a supporter of AlQaeda when in fact they were mortal enemies ”

Am I the only one getting deja vu these days? Every time I turn on the TV, I have flashbacks to 2001 and the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. You know what they saw about those who will not learn from the past.

Nope you are not the only one. The entire Syria crisis has been a replay. The worst part is it is the same proponents yet again seeking western meddling in ME countries with the same easily predictable bad outcomes.

I can personally support liberal interventions but it needs to be the right way in the right environment.

oldgeezer: “I can personally support liberal interventions but it needs to be the right way in the right environment.” Really. What previous “liberal intervention” have you deemed worthy of your support in the past?. What “right environment”. Yugoslavia, Libya, Somalia, Iraq, now Syria would they meet the “liberal intervention” canard. So many countries have been the recipient of US and western “liberal interventions” in Arica, the Caribbean, South America, throughout the world. The rhetoric, words “Democracy, Liberal” certainly has nothing to do with the true motives of these interventions. I’m surprised by your remarks .

The US has engaged in several “liberal interventions” or ‘R2Protect’, unfortunately, because they did not receive the imprimatur of the UNSC and/or they consisted solely of the ‘coalition of the willing’, they were all illegal in International law.

If country X will enter a period of peace, prosperity and the rule of law if and only if a tyrant is overthrown and if his overthrow requires the intervention, at little cost, of a foreign army then I must say that in principle the prospect seems attractive, promoting happiness and generous in spirit.
The problem is that the conditions may look quite simple, but are extremely sweeping and full of counterfactuals, where it is easy to imagine and hard to prove that everything will go according to plan. The interventionists may find it more difficult than they think to keep their costs low and may decide (though I don’t think that all interventionists are insincere from the beginning) that they are entitled to help themselves to some rewards from the territory.
The recent record of interventions is so shocking that anyone proposing one faces a massive burden of proof.

But what does peace even mean in such a situation? The interventionists would most likely elect to install a sympathizing local leader that would be good for their agenda. This does not necessarily mean that that leader would be good for peace and prosperity so long as he can be counted on for support. And as you said, it’s never a simple manner, has there ever been an intervention in the Middle East that produced more stability?

If we look at Iraq and Libya today, it’s hard to argue for any form of intervention.

“If country X will enter a period of peace, prosperity and the rule of law”

“at little cost”

“The interventionists may find it more difficult than they think to keep their costs low and may decide (though I don’t think that all interventionists are insincere from the beginning) that they are entitled to help themselves to some rewards from the territory.”

I believe you are correct that Interventionists sincerely believe that they “are entitled to help themselves to some rewards from the territory”, and you have the gall to mention “law” in your first sentence.

This is a scandalous notion, your leaders are not mandated by heaven, nor a popular plebiscite to rule over us. Why dont they just obey the laws that they themselves have promulgated. All the terms that you casually throw around, peace, prosperity, law, cost, tyrant, rewards need examination,

“I must say the prospect looks attractive” any situation in which one gets to award oneself “rewards” is inherently attractive.

I suppose that peace would mean a new government emerging from a genuine constitutional process in the place concerned, not a violent seizure of power by a faction, and pursuing peaceful policies internationally.
I agree that it’s all too probable that interventionists would start to behave like conquerors or marauders but it’s not inconceivable that they would behave better. That’s what gives intervention the attraction that it sometimes has to people who are not particularly horrible.

“If country X will enter a period of peace, prosperity and the rule of law if and only if a tyrant is overthrown and if his overthrow requires the intervention, at little cost, of a foreign army then I must say that in principle the prospect seems attractive, promoting happiness and generous in spirit.”

That’s a movie scenario, and a very unoriginal one, at that.* So, instead of cloud-cuckoo-land, set the way-back machine for any damn date you wish and tell us when that has ever happened?

* It does have a disturbing similarity to the excuses a certain real-life German guy used in his relatively bloodless interventions in Europe, before the real war started…

I regret using the word liberal instead of humanitarian. They are one and the same in my mind but I do feel the term liberal intervention has been coopted to some extent over the past decade or two. I regret making the comment as I don’t have the time to fully explain my position on the issue. That said I will do my best.

As Harry says interventions without the requisite UN support are illegal. My reading of the UN Charter would also say all regime change actions would be specifically illegal as well. I believe the intervention in Somalia was approrpiate at the time although the objectives and situation was allowed to deteriorate. It failed. The situation in Kosovo called out for intervention but the bombing campaign against civilians and civilian infrastructure was wrong. Rwanda was a situation where intervention was called for but never materialized. The I/P situation calls for intervention.

I would totally disagree that any of the other interventions by the US in the americas or middle east were liberal interventions. Calling them such does not make it one. They were attempts at regime change (or protection) to ensure compliant regimes were in place. Totally inappropriate, illegal and morally wrong.

I believe intervening to protect against massive loss of human life, in situations of genocide or ethnic cleansing, or to restore the rule of law in failed states (Somalia) is a valid goal.

Clearly in such an intervention it must be ascertained that the treatment will not result in a greater damage than that being addressed.

Not quite finished but I will post now as I already lost everything I had typed once. More to follow soon.

Iraq is of course the largest of such war crimes. While liberal/humanitarian intervention was one of the multitude of reasons thrown out in the attempt to find one that would stick it was clearly a lie from the get go. In addition while poor planning was blamed, one must still ask what kind of humanitarian intervention could fail to provide even the most rudimentary plans for the well being of those being supposedly saved. The civilian populace didn’t even rate mention in the planning efforts.

I believe regime change is frequently called for but never an appropriate goal of interventionists. Changes in regimes need to come from the internal population up and never from the outside down. Without that internal support no new regime can be stable, without tyranny, with the end result that, at the very least, you haven’t improved the collective lot for the populace.

I am pacifist enough that I believe the use of force is rarely the right answer but I can never be a pacifist to the extent that I would say tat force, or the threat of force, is never the right answer.

Backing up a bit I think that intervention against ISIS is called for. I don’t believe that the current western proponents have that as their ultimate goal and that any intervention made by them will likely target Assad and result in a greater loss of human life.

There is a basic moral duty to help those in trouble if you can and if there are no serious contrary reasons – so basic that it must apply both at the personal and at the political level.
‘If you can help by intervention’ – this condition cannot indeed be met if all intervention necessarily involves massive plunder and negation of the rule of law. I dwelt on the general bigness of the If and am not quite sure why gamal is so distressed by me.
I admit that I don’t think that all intervention by anyone, representing any kind of society, way of life or religion must by absolute necessity and in all circumstances be plunder-minded or generally vicious. I pay no compliments to the current Western record.
My previous remarks about the contrast between tyrants and legitimate rulers in reply to our respected colleague Atlantaiconoclast were in the context of Lincoln and civil war, where that contrast is pretty crucial. However I was arguing that the fact that someone is a tyrant does not by itself justify interventionists in overthrowing him. I was hoping gamal and Diasp0ra might have agreed with that.

Any intervention in a sovereign state, other than sympathizing and comforting local opposition I suppose, is illegal since 1648, and much more forcefully banned since 1945.
The escape clause introduced into the functioning of a United Nations organization officially in the iron grip of the colonial powers, totally controlled by US imperialism, cannot ever be implemented fairly and benignly –it is necessarily aggression.

Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard in these remarkable interviews the first one with Wolf Blitzer lays our the folly of US intervention in Syria. This must see interview gives me hope that all is not lost.
From Gabbard

“Here are 10 reasons the U.S. must end its war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad:

Because if we succeed in overthrowing the Syrian government of Assad, it will open the door for ISIS, al-Qaeda, and other Islamic extremists to take over all of Syria. There will be genocide and suffering on a scale beyond our imagination. These Islamic extremists will take over all the weaponry, infrastructure, and military hardware of the Syrian army and be more dangerous than ever before.
We should not be allying ourselves with these Islamic extremists by helping them achieve their goal because it is against the security interests of the United States and all of civilization.
Because the money and weapons the CIA is providing to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad are going directly or indirectly into the hands of the Islamic extremist groups, including al-Qaeda affiliates, al-Nusra, Ahrar al-Sham, and others who are the actual enemies of the United States. These groups make up close to 90 percent of the so-called opposition forces, and are the most dominant fighters on the ground.
Because our efforts to overthrow Assad has increased and will continue to increase the strength of ISIS and other Islamic extremists, thus making them a bigger regional and global threat.
Because this war has exacerbated the chaos and carnage in Syria and, along with the terror inflicted by ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups fighting to take over Syria, continues to increase the number of Syrians forced to flee their country.
Because we should learn from our past mistakes in Iraq and Libya that U.S. wars to overthrow secular dictators (Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi) cause even more chaos and human suffering and open the door for Islamic extremists to take over in those countries.
Because the U.S. has no credible government or government leader ready to bring order, security, and freedom to the people of Syria.
Because even the ‘best case’ scenario—that the U.S. successfully overthrows the Syrian government of Assad—would obligate the United States to spend trillions of dollars and the lives of American service members in the futile effort to create a new Syria. This is what we have been trying to do in Iraq for twelve years, and we still have not succeeded. The situation in Syria will be much more difficult than in Iraq.
Because our war against the Syrian government of Assad is interfering with our being one-pointedly focused on the war to defeat ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and the other Islamic extremists who are our actual enemy.
Because our war to overthrow the Assad government puts us in direct conflict with Russia and increases the likelihood of war between the United States and Russia and the possibility of another world war.”http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-21/us-congresswoman-introduces-bill-stop-illegal-war-assad-says-cia-ops-must-stop

No one has really denied what I asserted, which was that the basic moral duty to help others has some political and international importance, which means that it must influence the use of the power to wage war – but that we can be dreadfully misled and can shamefully disguise self-interest as ‘altruism’.
If echino means that it was already obvious in 1648 – and recognised that year by a committee of monarchs – that limits to our blundering into the affairs of others had to be solemnly agreed he’s absolutely right.

The desire to do good is inherent in all humans, unfortunately so also is the desire to profit where possible for that altruism, especially when governments are so influenced by corporate profits or more likely geo strategic considerations, [think Libya] That is why UNSC resolutions empowering the world community at large to undertake these sometimes necessary undertakings is the fairest way . Not perfect, but it is the only system we have at the moment.

“No one has really denied what I asserted, which was that the basic moral duty to help others has some political and international importance, which means that it must influence the use of the power to wage war”

You can help people by killing them and blowing up their stuff? And you know when to do that?
Wow.

It’s not inconceivable that you might in principle help people by using force against someone who is oppressing or gradually destroying them – is that really in question? I’ve repeatedly said that it is very difficult to ‘know how to do this’ on the international scale and in realistic terms and that people overestimate their own wisdom and goodwill. I didn’t except myself.
Harry and others are saying, I think, that the necessary and perhaps sufficient condition for justified intervention is consensus expressed through the UN. Yet others say that the UN is such an imperialist mechanism that it is of no moral value.
On the practical question I say only that the recent calamitous record of the West inspires no confidence.

Roha: The Vietnamese intervention is of course used by Chomsky as case of justifiable and well executed intervention. Sierra Leone is a touch more complex, couple of scholars at Maryland U have written a brief and interesting case study, Tony Blair praised it and it was the model that re-established neo-Palmerstonian “diplomacy”:

Mooser: “you can help people by killing them and blowing up their stuff?”

what is genuinely absurd is that if we take the current situation in “Syraq” we are being asked not to support intervention to correct the effects of our previous intervention, we are being asked to support intervention to counter our current and on-going intervention, i believe thats two rounds of “rewards” we may award ourselves, plunder in common parlance, the toil of the good heart never ends.

Since the ‘birth’ of Israel and before, Zionists have tried to link Palestinians to the fashionable Evil Doers du jour.

In the 1950s, Palestinians were the New Nazis, with Nasser as the New Hitler.

In subsequent decades, Israel was at the coal face of the Cold War, fighting against those Palestinian proxies of the USSR.

When the Soviets became yesterday’s Bad Guy, leaving the Israelis a bit stumped, the bombing of the World Trade Centre did them an enormous favour. Now, khamaas=Al Qaeda, Palestinian resistance=jihadism, and ‘we are all fighting the same enemy’.

Fast forward to today, and with Al Qaeda having gone a bit out of fashion, now IS have come along to fill the gap, and Palestinians are once again linked to Public Enemy No 1. Never mind that khaamas – and especially, Israel’s obsession, kheezbalakh – are doing an awful lot more to combat IS than Israel ever did. Clinton either hasn’t got a clue, or she knows she’s talking crap, but will do it anyway. I go for the latter option, but then again, it’s hard to overrestimate the cluelessness of the American ruling class.

“Hillary’s claim on the White House is exactly her foreign policy credentials when compared to Trump or Rubio. ”

Forget the credentials. Performance is what counts. She has been Secretary of State, and US foreign policy is a disaster. Impressive credentials are irrelevant when you know the candidate has got everything wrong.

Don’t disparage the Empress’ achievements: as Secretary of State (Foreign Affairs Minister to you) she oversaw exactly what had been ordered by New York through Tel Aviv: the attack on and utter destruction of Libya, not to mention all the rest. She earned her title of criminal against humanity as a player in the first rank, no longer just one voter among hundreds. We won’t even mention her service playing the Byzantine Empress Consort.

Sure, Mister Fredman. The ass-stabbing ghoul Empress is surely serious in wanting to destroy all countries on the Zionist kill list. There isnt the slightest doubt about it. She can be bought at the right price to do anything your accursed Zionist conspiracy asks her –decent people cannot offer to pay her more.

The readers of this blog are not typical low information Americans for you to deflect. The only way Iran and isis are interwoven is that Iran has recognized the danger of Isis early and is fighting them. Hamas is a liberation movement fighting for statehood and existed before Isis and is in no shape or way related to isis. The desire to conflate all Islamists under the banner of Isis is a distinctive neocon Israeli strategy that makes it more difficult to tackle Isis globally.

raising the costs to Iran for bad behavior will contribute to a more effective fight against ISIS.

And as we work out a broader regional approach, we should of course be closely consulting with Israel

bad behavior? she sounds like a schoolmarm w/iran the bad kid in the playground. iran is fighting isis, not the US. we should be thanking them, not pretending like they are supposed to act for our approval. we are not the world boss (“closely consulting with Israel”).

Annie you think Clinton upbraiding Iran is bad, here she is Threatening both Russia and China.
Clinton..”I don’t think Russia or China are paying any price at all ‘nothing at all’ for standing up on behalf of the Assad regime, the only way that will change is if every nation represented here directly and urgently makes it clear that Russia and China will pay a price”
War with Russia and China, could there be a greater danger to civilization than a President Hillary Clinton?

I doubt the Russians or Chinese really care whether it is Assad or not.

Regardless of who is in power in a country, the incumbent govt have a right and a duty to attempt to protect the state and majority from an armed uprising by a minority. Intervention by another state must be requested either by the incumbent govt, whether we like ’em or not, or by a representative of the majority, whether we like ’em or not.

Such a majority representative other than the incumbent govt has yet to emerge in Syria. The Syrian Govt has requested Russian assistance.

The you tube above on Clinton has other very important segments 1/ ‘Putin laughs in the face of a reporter’. When the reporter suggested the US supplied anti missile defences in Europe were against the Iranian threat. Very funny. And 2/ Putin tells everyone exactly who created ISIS. Very true.

(2) electing a U.S. president free from the corporate money that is crushing the middle class through economic scamming, needless wars, social chaos, and strangling freedom of speech?

Freeing U.S. politics from corporate money would enable MANY more women to run for political office. It seems to me that would be much more valuable than one woman president who is so blatantly beholden to corporate bankers and war profiteers.

Women supporting Hilary out of some “feminist” idea is really disgusting, and a sign of the cooptation and commercialization of some parts of mainstream liberal feminism.

What these women want is not the liberation of women and equality, but them being able to take a larger part in the same patriarchal imperial power system. They don’t care about Palestinian women, or any other women who Hilary would bomb to death. This is why intersectionality is critical for any group that seeks liberation.

I don’t know about misogynistic, but the comment should have been addressed to all of Hillary’s fans not just her “female fans”.
It is wrong to assume that only her female fans can be misguided. I’m certain she has many male fans who are just as misguided.
I hope to see a female president someday myself, but not enough to support a charter member of the DLC.

“Until they recognize that foreign policy sets the limits of domestic policy, …”

What does he mean by that? I think I’ve always felt that foreign policy possessed some kind of priority, but I can’t say why. Anyone have any thoughts? Of course there are the fiscal constraints. But is there something more? Does it establish a moral precedent? Or is it more about the fact that foreign policy discourse is almost entirely in the hands of the elites, and so establishes the kind of relationship between the governed and the governing?

Until they recognize that foreign policy sets the limits of domestic policy…What does he mean by that?

it means that 600 billion of our federal budget goes to military expenditures. that doesn’t include veteran benefits and a whole slew of other things. it means if we spend our money on war – we strip funds from our domestic budget.

RE: “Militant Israeli policies re Palestinian resistance are being offered as a role model to the west . . . “ ~ Weiss

MY COMMENT: Down, down, down we [the U.S.] go into the deep, dark abyss; hand in hand with Israel. This illustrates my fear that Revisionist Zionism and Likudnik Israel (specifically by virtue of their inordinate sway over the U.S.) might very well be an “existential threat” to the values of The Enlightenment ! ! !

RE: “It’s difficult for civilized men and women to recognize that our cities, our airways, sometimes our waterways are prowled by beasts that devour the innocent in their way. And the forces of civilization, when they realize the severity of this problem, have no option but to unite very clearly and defeat these beasts.” ~ Netanyahu

RE: “It is certainly true that ISIS has been a thorn in the side of the civilized world since its inception, and has displayed an almost incomprehensible cruelty with its kidnappings and beheadings…. It richly deserves to be bombed into oblivion, and beyond, But is Hamas less cruel?“ ~ Gerald Skolnik

[EXCERPT] Surveying the wreckage of a neighbor’s bungalow hit by a Palestinian rocket, retired Israeli official Avner Cohen traces the missile’s trajectory back to an “enormous, stupid mistake” made 30 years ago.“Hamas, to my great regret, is Israel’s creation,” says Mr. Cohen, a Tunisian-born Jew who worked in Gaza for more than two decades. Responsible for religious affairs in the region until 1994, Mr. Cohen watched the Islamist movement take shape, muscle aside secular Palestinian rivals and then morph into what is today Hamas, a militant group that is sworn to Israel’s destruction.Instead of trying to curb Gaza’s Islamists from the outset, says Mr. Cohen, Israel for years tolerated and, in some cases, encouraged them as a counterweight to the secular nationalists of the Palestine Liberation Organization and its dominant faction, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah. . .
. . . When Israel first encountered Islamists in Gaza in the 1970s and ’80s, they seemed focused on studying the Quran, not on confrontation with Israel. The Israeli government officially recognized a precursor to Hamas called Mujama Al-Islamiya, registering the group as a charity. It allowed Mujama members to set up an Islamic university and build mosques, clubs and schools. Crucially, Israel often stood aside when the Islamists and their secular left-wing Palestinian rivals battled, sometimes violently, for influence in both Gaza and the West Bank.“When I look back at the chain of events I think we made a mistake,” says David Hacham, who worked in Gaza in the late 1980s and early ’90s as an Arab-affairs expert in the Israeli military. “But at the time nobody thought about the possible results.” . . .

I’ve been reading this web-site for the last couple of weeks and I’m amazed at the lack of reality in the view points that are expressed. Of course Clinton will support Israel. Just like all the other Presidential candidates. I mean, even Bernie Sanders bows to Bibi !
You Americans just have to ask yourselves one question; Who has more support in the House and the Senate; Bibi or Barack ?
As for ISIS – our friends in the House of Saud have done a good job. When Syria falls apart who do you think’s going to ciean up the mess ?

To those hear that keep repeating the irrelevant argument that the Palestinian case is different than others involving Arab or Muslim and in particular Hamas terror is different that others`:
All cases are different and have their own attributes and history – Syria is not Iraq or Yemen or Sudan or Libya – and likewise the Palestinian arena has its own particular. But analysis is not just about differentiating but even more so about finding commonalities – all sciences are founded on that.
Now Hamas and ISIS both uphold Islamic ideologies, both use violence as a main approach and in particular terror as main tool, both have Western-style democratic countries as target (in addition to other Muslim enemies), neither is democratic and both enforce themselves on opponents brutally, both mainly operate in the Mid-East – that`s plenty enough to deal with them within the same analytical framework and response attitude.

both uphold Islamic ideologies, both use violence as a main approach and in particular terror as main tool, both have Western-style democratic countries as target (in addition to other Muslim enemies), neither is democratic and both enforce themselves on opponents brutally, both mainly operate in the Mid-East – that`s plenty enough to deal with them within the same analytical framework and response attitude.

so let’s compare israel and ISIS

both uphold religious fundamentalist ideologies, both use violence as a main approach and in particular terror as main tool, both target Arab/Muslims (in addition to other Muslim enemies), neither is democratic and both enforce themselves on opponents brutally, both mainly operate in the Mid-East – that`s plenty enough to deal with them within the same analytical framework and response attitude.

Both use violence to acquire territory that belongs to ir’s ingabitants. Both deny the right of inhabitants to renain on their own land as well as deny the rights of those that do. Both base their acquisitions on religious foundations. Both brutally kill civilians using military force. Both recruit in our home countries as well as interfere in our nations. Both destroy the physical memory/ structures of the original inhabitants. Both are based on group supremacy.

First Palestinians were Nazis, then they were Communists, then they were Al-Qaeda, and now they are ISIS.

It’s worth mentioning that literally all these groups are mortal enemies. They all hate each other and have all fought each other at a certain point. (except for the Nazis as they didn’t exist for long enough, thankfully)

So either Palestinians in their support radically different, clashing and irreconcilable ideologies at the same time, OR, as Maximus mentioned earlier, Israel is simply trying to tie Palestinians to the flavor of the month big baddie on the scene.

All cases are different and have their own attributes and history – Syria is not Iraq or Yemen or Sudan or Libya – and likewise the Palestinian arena has its own particular. But analysis is not just about differentiating but even more so about finding commonalities – all sciences are founded on that.

Analysis is about understanding a subject, it can entail differentiating or finding commonalities depending on the case. Doing one or the other for their own sake is not serious analysis and is definitely not what “all sciences are founded on”.

Now Hamas and ISIS both uphold Islamic ideologies, both use violence as a main approach and in particular terror as main tool, both have Western-style democratic countries as target (in addition to other Muslim enemies), neither is democratic and both enforce themselves on opponents brutally, both mainly operate in the Mid-East – that`s plenty enough to deal with them within the same analytical framework and response attitude.

That might be plenty enough for you but people who actually know a little bit about these organizations know that ISIS is a Salafi jihadist organization and Hamas is not, in fact Hamas routinely cracks down on Salafi jihadists in Gaza. Dealing with them within the same analytical framework doesn’t make sense. To quote Daniel Byman, counter-terrorism expert at The Brookings Institution, “The Islamic State and Hamas differ widely — so widely that claims that they are similar mislead more than they enlighten”. The purpose of conflating these two organizations (and therefore misleading people) is to serve the interests of Western and Israeli state power.

@RoHa “ISIS seems to lack hostility towards Isreal”
Don’t worry this is just the first phase – they want first to consolidate their position in Arabia, which makes a strategic sense.
However their lack of use by ISIS of the “Israel (Palestinian) card” – a one-time key tool to all power aspirants in the region – is what stands out. It shows to tell you how much weight the Palestinian case has lost – even as some sworn enemies of Israel, e.g. recently in Sweden, still refer to it as the “Palestinians are the core issue in the Mid-East”.
So, indeed, it the main point is not so much that the Palestinian issue is lumped together with other Islamic ones – that`s inevitable – but how it now pales in comparison to them. That`s to me the biggest reward to Israel in managing to withstand pressures long enough until this change arrived. Reaping the full benefit of that awaits the arrival of a new president in the White House – with a firmer general stance on related matters.

Australian journalist Sharri Markson had a run-in with Israeli security following a visit by her to a hospital in Israel treating Syrian anti-Assad fighters. My bet is that their real concern is not that she might reveal personal details about them that would put them at risk, but that she might reveal that they are ISIS/ISIL/Daesh fighters – which, after Paris, would drop Israel deep in the brown solids.

@ DaBakr
“I suppose it is a bit difficult to be so far out in either left or right field but as a general rule of how the world works: when either far right or far left “prevails” it has ALWAYS been a nightmare for the humans living on earth”

You have nailed it.The far right lunatics so long in control of your precious Land Of Creation have truly made it a nightmare for the Palestinians in their own homeland.

What I don’t understand is why Americans allow Zionists, Israelis and Jews to run their country. By the look of it, for all the talk of freedom, Americans are the least free of anyone in the developed world.

The simple answer is: they don`t allow that or anything close to that. Despite what you read here – and people already convinced themselves that what in effect is sheer propaganda is the truth just because it is kept repeated by likeminded others – there is a real convergence of interests between the two countries and a lot of effective mutual cooperation in various important fields.
Beyond that – and once more, in sharp contrast to what is generally stated here – Israel IS highly appreciated in the US for its frontier spirit, the “can do” attitude, the ability to create a successful economy out of nothing (and even if Israel was helped it did use that effectively) and survive in hard conditions and under dire threats. Isn`t it also the American Spirit? And no wonder both see themselves in “exceptionalism” terms.
Then there is also the Judeo-Christian heritage which unites in a spiritual way – especially in these times in the face of a global movements that made the fight with “the Zionists/Jews & the Crusaders” a central motto of its.
Isn`t all that plenty?

@mooser
That` was in EUROPE – the “old world”. There the Jew was an “outsider” because of the self-perceived homogeneity of the “locals” – the “real” citizens of the nation. All that is gone In the New World, which has no original “locals” and its multi-ethnic population is from many nations (well, I ignore here the small number of Red Indians).
In the US these essentially two sister religions – they are similar in many fundamental ways (different in religious symbols and rituals) and let us not forget that Christ came from the Jews – found their way back to each other.

“the ability to create a successful economy out of nothing”
Out of nothing = Nakba denial.

“Israel IS highly appreciated in the US for its frontier spirit”

Ahhh… “frontier spirit,” if you know what I mean. Al Quds, we got 84% of the native kids that’s living below the poverty line, shouldn’t be too hard to create a better solution for em. Camps, ghettos, etc, “drugged cockroaches in a bottle”. Manifest Destiny in the corral of Shuafat. Got checkpoints all across the frontiers to scare the little children to death with. The Naqab, demolitions — easy a as a piece of cake. Galilee — the natives’ political parties and charities are now “illegal”, all we have to do is just call in the Local Sheriff. Gaza, we got the largest concentration camp in the world. Bantustans everywhere else. Oh yea we got ISIS. If anyone starts in with the “One State Solution” kindly explain to the media there’s a Clash of Cultures. No chance Pioneering with a “frontier spirit,” if anyone is willing to tolerate a Native at the helm of state.

“Isn’t that also the American Spirit?” Well, you tell me “Ivri”, you just tell me.

@ mooser “Judeo-Christian bullshit”
The Judaism-Christian saga is not bullshit. The persecution of Jews by Christians in Europe was a major issue for a long time. It generally came to a partial end in Europe after the Holocaust, for obvious reasons, and was not repeated in the new-world immigration countries. So it`s a big change – at least when viewed from a Jewish angle – especially when coupled with the re-establishment of an independent Jewish political entity around about the same time.
The pro-Israel alliance in the US of Jews and Christians makes that all the more so dramatic and the emergence of Islamists as a common threat cements it further. Alas, in Europe, the latter threat will not be enough to make a real change – they will continue to have a basic un-sympathetic attitude to Israel.

@ ivri “The simple answer is: they don`t allow that or anything close to that”

Perhaps you can explain then why the US abstains from voting on UNSC Chapt VI resolutions and vetoes UNSC Chapt VII resolutions against Israel, when Israel is in clear breach of the UN Charter and binding laws those resolutions reaffirm and emphasize

“Despite what you read here – and people already convinced themselves that what in effect is sheer propaganda is the truth just because it is kept repeated by likeminded others”

Like the LoN Mandate for Palestine gave Jews a state? Israel didn’t proclaim any borders? The IDF is the most moral army in the world? etc etc etc

“there is a real convergence of interests between the two countries and a lot of effective mutual cooperation in various important fields”

These effective mutual cooperation in various important fields, name a few

“… Israel IS highly appreciated in the US for its frontier spirit, the “can do” attitude, the ability to create a successful economy out of nothing (and even if Israel was helped it did use that effectively) and survive in hard conditions and under dire threats”

And the Ziodollars it uses to buy US politicians

“Isn`t it also the American Spirit?”

The US long ago stopped colonizing. Gave all those it had colonized full citizenship and the vote. Frowns on women being made to stand at the back of the bus. Doesn’t have a religious regime dominating all marriages etc etc etc.

—————————
But U.S. imperialism continues unabated. Classic colonialism was followed by neocolonialism (” the geopolitical practice of using capitalism, business globalization, and cultural imperialism to influence a country, in lieu of either direct military control (imperialism) or indirect political control” –Wiki), often involving the subversion of democratic regimes and support for brutal dictatorships friendly to transnational capital. Neocolonialism in turn has taken new forms with the advent of neoliberal (financialized) imperialism–the use of transnational organizations such as the WTO, IMF, the World Bank etc. and various “free trade” agreements etc. (https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-tpp-and-the-new-global-corporate-government/), to undermine national sovereignty and allow transnational capitalist domination of the human spirit to proceed unimpeded. Needless to say, direct military interventions by the Empire of Capital have hardly ceased.

U.S.-led imperialism is a vast topic, but let me point to just a small example of how colonialism has taken new but no less undemocratic forms: Honduras’ proposed Economic Development and Employment Zones (ZEDEs), popularly referred to as “model cities”.

ZEDEs represent an aggressive form of special economic zone in which investors and international overseers can create semi-autonomous, highly privatized city-states designed to be legally, judicially and administratively independent from the structures of the Honduran state.

Internationally, many heard of these plans as “charter cities,” proposed by U.S. economist Paul Romer back in 2009. The idea to create charter cities took force after the 2009 military coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya opened Honduran markets further and aimed to make the country the most attractive place to invest in the Americas.

Romer has since abandoned his efforts in Honduras, but the charter city vision has passed through various transformations, marked by legal and procedural anomalies and secrecy. The initial law passed to govern these zones, the Law for Special Development Regions (REDs for their acronym in Spanish), was declared unconstitutional by the Honduran Supreme Court in 2012, largely due to concern over the fragmentation of sovereign Honduran national territory that the law entailed.

About two months later, the four judges who voted to overturn the RED law were removed in what many refer to as a technical coup by the Honduran Congress, who circumvented the country’s legal procedures to replace them. Óscar Chinchilla, the one judge who voted to uphold the RED Law and who was spared removal by congress was later named Attorney General by current President Juan Orlando Hernández. Calls for Chinchilla’s resignation over corruption allegations have been part of current pro-democracy efforts.

While the current ZEDE Law’s (Decree #120-2013) history underscores the dire need for accountability and judicial reform in Honduras, the law’s very existence threatens to undermine any strides that would be made in this regard. The law allows each ZEDE to establish its own judicial system, which would have “exclusive competence” and would not be subject to appeals in the Constitutional Chamber of the Honduran Supreme Court. The zone’s judges would be approved by the Federal Council of the Judiciary from a list of candidates provided by an international body called the Committee for the Adoption of Best Practices, circumventing the country’s constitutional procedures for nominating and approving judges. In 2013, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Expression and Opinion stated that the creation of autonomous judiciaries in the ZEDEs would violate Hondurans’ right to access to justice.

Many more concerns exist regarding the democratic rights of Hondurans within future ZEDEs. Who will govern the zones and under what procedures? While the ZEDE law leaves some ambiguity, a few structures are clear. The law provides substantial governance powers to the aforementioned commission, charged with promoting the zones’ economic development and expansion. In addition to recommending judges, the commission determines the zones’ internal laws and norms, appoints an administrator to each – the Technical Secretary- and can remove said administrator according to their discretion.

The commission is also stacked with advocates from some of the primary organizations credited with the spread of neoliberal economic ideology and policies around the world, including the Mont Pelerin Institute, the CATO Institute, the Hayek Institute, and former members of Ronald Reagan’s administration..

Of the 21 commission members, nine are from the U.S. and include Republican political advocates Grover Norquist and Morton Blackwell, as well as a son of Ronald Reagan. Only four members are Honduran, and they include former president Ricardo Maduro and one of the ZEDEs main visionaries, Ebal Díaz. The commission’s four European members include the co-CEO of Saxo Bank, Lars Seier Christensen, and Gabriela von Habsburg, the Archduchess of the Habsburg dynasty of Austria.

Given the actors involved, the commission is likely to promote not international best practices in human rights, but best practices for securing investor rights and promoting free market norms. Concerns over what this means for affected communities is exacerbated by the ZEDE Law’s expansion of eminent domain to allow for the expropriation of lands for private projects.

Where does this leave Honduran citizens? While the RED Law previously mandated the zone’s eventual return to democratic rule, the ZEDE law provides no such path toward democratization of the zone, leaving residents previously under the jurisdiction of elected municipal governments without the right to local democratic governance.

[…]With no requirements for consultation or consent in the majority of cases, local citizens may find these rights usurped from them from one day to the next, with little possibility for recourse.

Decisions made in Congress and by the executive, where zone residents would still have electoral representation, would nonetheless have little impact on policies within the independent zones. Thus, while Hondurans living in ZEDEs will still hold a Honduran passport and ID card, substantively-speaking their status as citizens would be left tenuous at best.

[…]One participant in a recent gathering of southern-based community organizations in Honduras expressed the larger problem facing Honduran society: “We will have to decide, do we want a homeland or a colony? A State or a company?” [emphasis added]

—————-
Neoliberal “Economic Development and Employment Zones” may well be part of the future for the Palestinians as national sovereignty becomes increasingly obsolete (for some of the world’s less fortunate.) In any case, the interests of U.S. and Israeli elites are very much aligned in this regard.

I would suggest that the empire has significantly metamorphosed such that it can no longer be considered the nationalistic US empire, but rather the global empire of the corporate/financial elites, your “Empire of Capital” a more accurate description. This is a significant development not fully appreciated. Many analysts describe the American empire as declining, which is partially true. However, the global empire of the global elites seems to me growing stronger. This altered empire transcends the various nation states such that some of the elites of Russia, China and Iran are, in reality, imperial elites more loyal to the global system underpinning their own power than to the nation state in which they reside. And while the balance of power remains in the US, the new trade agreements indicate where elite loyalty lies. A couple of quotes and a link regarding the TPP, the latest disaster in the making.

“The TPP is not simply an economic document, about trade in goods, services and, investor money capital flows. TPP is first and foremost a political document. TPP is the latest salvo fired by global corporations against national and popular sovereignty, against Democracy itself. The key to understanding how TPP is about global corporations setting up their own global government is contained in its Chapters 27 and 28.

In chapter 27, TPP provides for a new executive-legislative body whose decisions will usurp national and state-local legislative functions and representative democracy — already under serious attack everywhere by corporate money and other initiatives. And in chapter 28, TPP provides for a new kind of global corporate court system, run by corporate-friendly lawyers and hirelings who will make decisions which cannot be reviewed, appealed or challenged in existing court systems of any TPP member country. TPP ‘courts’ will take precedence over US and other national court systems, already under heavy attack by corporate forces vigorously promoting arbitration as a means by which to bypass the formal judicial system in the US.” (Jack Rasmus) http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/19/the-tpp-and-the-new-global-corporate-government/

I can see that there are ideas common to followers of Judaism and of Christianity, though many such ideas can be shared by others as well. There’s certainly a set of people whose religion is one or the other of these. But if there is a religion called Judaeochristianity what are its expressions and who are its followers?

You got it wrong, MHughes976.
There is no such set. See, the “Israel debate” is a shorthand program designed for use only in specific ways. Clicking on “Judeo-Christianity” will automatically open a window generating a set of tasks; for example, by pressing “Judeo-Christianity” a user can choose to “Imply that Zionists and Americans have a mutual culture/morality”, “Imply that Muslims (aka Palestinians) cannot be trusted at the helm of state”, “Imply that Americans should support Zionism”, or “Imply that certain groups, like African Americans and Zionists, have mutual interests”, that certain regimes can be changed, etc. It’s a cheap program that has undergone updating and debugging over the course of years. Even editors of otherwise alert websites sometimes use it, e.g., to make the point that Islam needs to be “reformed”, or to claim that attacks on U.S. landmarks were perpetrated by Judeo-Christianity’s “opposite”.

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.

Subscription Options:

Weekly Daily Both

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.